Wez Furlong wrote:
> Just a general comment on the whole idea: automake regenerating
> *everything* in response to a minor change in some part of a project
> has convinced me that any kind of automatic build regeneration is a
> bad idea. (This is something I've observed with other GNU-style
> packages; I don't know if svn even uses automake.)
No, just autoconf and libtool.
> Those kind of changes don't happen often enough to warrant making it
> automatic; a single autogen.sh script that takes care of everything is
> sufficient.
>
> Auto-generating the build can have serious consequences if something
> triggers the rebuild dependency and where the required auto* tools are
> either not present on the machine, or have incompatible versions that
> won't work with your project; an otherwise fine tarball suddenly is
> broken and unable to build on your production box.
I share much of the above opinion, but am not against auto rebuilds provided
we make sure they can only occur in working copies, never in tarballs, *and*
they do not rebuild too much too often.
Max.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue May 3 21:44:13 2005